§ 2000e-2

Citation: § 2000e-2
Parent Document: Abril-Rivera v. Johnson, 806 F.3d 599 (2015)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2015-11-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3155371/abril-rivera-v-johnson/ ↗

Full Text

1,400 chars

7    The district court held that plaintiffs had successfully
made a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination with
respect to both the rotational staffing plan and the closing of
the PR-NPSC facility, but that defendants' actions were consistent
with business necessity and that plaintiffs had not presented
viable less discriminatory alternatives.
     8    Plaintiffs' opening brief refers to a third allegedly
discriminatory employment practice -- the fact that there were no
full-time positions at the PR-NPSC. But the brief mentions this
only in passing, under a heading entitled "PR-NPSC Closure," and
that is not enough to preserve the argument. See United States v.
Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) ("[I]ssues adverted to in
a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed
argumentation, are deemed waived."). Moreover, at oral argument,
the court asked plaintiffs' counsel to specifically enumerate the
challenged employment practices, and she listed only the
implementation of the rotational staffing plan and the closing of
the PR-NPSC, thus confirming that the plaintiffs are not pursuing
an argument based on full-time positions on appeal. In any event,
such an argument would fail because, as the district court found,
plaintiffs presented no record evidence of any deleterious
consequences they suffered as a result of their employment
classification.

Other Sections in This Document (839)

Full Text